On September 7th, Fred Thompson made what the Washington Post unpatriotically reported was a “grandiose claim.” Thompson told Iowans that when you look back over our history “our people have shed more blood for other people’s liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world.”

The Washington ComPost begs to differ. They cite several “combinations” of nations from ancient times to the losses of the allies fighting the Germans in both World Wars as their â€œproof” that others have shed more blood to free “other people” than have Americans. But, far from “proof,” the Post’s argument falls flat under scrutiny.

In fact, all of the “combinations” that the Post uses does not pass the test of joining a war for “other people’s liberty.” Really, only the actions of the British can be pointed to as having been undertaken for such a motive. Only the British, crusaders against slavery, rival the Americans for their blood spilled for other’s benefit.

The French, for instance did not join either WWI or WWII to help anyone but themselves because, after all, they were being invaded by the Germans. For their part, the Germans didn’t enter the World Wars to help others either. They were the aggressors both times, it should be remembered.

And to go all the way back to the Greek wars as the Post did… well, that is patently absurd. No one fought for anyone but themselves in those conflicts, really. Far from fighting for “other’s liberty,” the peoples in those conflicts were fighting for their own survival.

But what of the USA? Let’s use the very wars that the Post used to tally up the numbers of American casualties.

Certainly we were fighting for our interests in each of those conflicts — no one is claiming we didnâ€™t — but we did so without being in immediate danger each and every time. And let us not forget our own Civil War. Arguably we also fought then for “others.” We lost some 300,000 Americans (who fought for the Union) to free the slaves who then were not really considered “part” of the country in any meaningful way. Most white Americans truly felt they were fighting for “other’s liberty” in that conflict.

As I said, the Brits deserve a great appreciation for their own shedding of blood. As the Post says, “According to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the British Commonwealth lost 1.7 million troops in the two world wars.” This is a true statement, but it should also be remembered that the “British Commonwealth” totaled to a far greater number of citizens than the population of the USA ever had. It should also be realized that a great number of those citizens could be counted as fighting for themselves and not “otherâ€™s liberty.” The entire “British Commonwealth” did not consist of just the folks living in Merry ol’ England, to be sure. Many were in areas under direct attack or direct threat by German forces, for instance.

But here is the most outrageous aspect of the Post’s argument: that the Soviets shed more blood for “other’s liberty” than did we.

The Post writes,

“…the Soviet Union suffered at least 8 million casualties, or more than 10 times the number of U.S. casualties for all wars combined. According to Winston Churchill, the Red Army “tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine.” It can be argued that Soviet troops were primarily fighting to free their homeland from Nazi occupation. After fighting its way to Berlin, the Soviet Union imposed its own dictatorship over Eastern Europe. Even so, Soviet sacrifices contributed greatly to the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi domination. Soviet forces died for their own country and their own tyrannical government, but they also spilled blood on behalf of their Western allies.”

The likening of America’s actions and the Soviet’s in WWII is absurd and insulting to America.

The gist of Thompson’s claim was that we, the USA, have fought for other people more often than have other nations. The Post claims we didn’t. But absolutely, for100% sure, the Soviets did not fight for ANYONE but themselves. The accidental benefit of their war efforts to lending a hand to the allies was so incidental to their motives as to make the claim of their altruism laughable.

And to make the claim that Communist oppressors could, in ANY way, ever be interested in “other’s liberty” is the biggest ignorance of history and the most blatant molestation of truth since Walter Duranty was making apologies for Stalin in the pages of the New York Times.

It also appears that another thing that is laughable is any claim the Washington Post has toward patriotism and love for this country.

So, in the end, a look at history really does show that the USA has been far and away more apt to fighting for “other’s liberty” than has any other country.